2009-10-30

World Challenge

If we analyze the world as it is now, and how we would like it to be, then it becomes a technical challenge to make the appropriate fixes, or provide the appropriate resources, to get from here to there. Any individual can slot themselves into this equation. See where there is a lack of resources being applies to a particular area that would further that agenda. Pouring money into a black hole in Africa that makes an even bigger problem in Africa the next year, is thus a losing proposition, a negative in fact.

Whereas putting money into a war that has the effect of taking away state resources from a dictator and giving that to the people, is a major step in the right direction.

There were certain things missing in the world a few years ago. To a large extent they are still missing, but at least as an individual I have managed to take a lot of them from zero presence to non-zero presence.

Here are some of those things:

1. A concerted effort by non-American governments and NGOs to basically say "this anti-Americanism that caused 9/11 is grossly unacceptable and after all that America has done for the world, we don't even want America to have to do the fighting itself - we want an opportunity to repay America's kindness, so we will take on the burden of protecting America. America, relax while we blitzkrieg through all your enemies".

2. A reformed version of Islam that is not much different to the reformed (from the heathen-burning days) version of Christianity we see today. Mu'tazilah fills this role today.

3. A movement to put an end to racism, especially by non-whites who are the major offenders, and specifically emphasizing racism against whites, who are the most widely persecuted.

4. A movement to liberate all the oppressed (by government/dictator) people of the world, with a sense of urgency given the extremely unhappy state of affairs, and using all available tools (including war) to provide timely resolution.

5. A Manhattan Project to solve the root cause of this anti-Americanism, with a preference - but only a preference - for a non-genocidal solution.

6. International project to create a public domain (genuine public domain, not the Virus Licenced rubbish) version of Windows to break Microsoft's monopoly. It is expected that competing companies would commercialise the PD offering.

7. International project to create a public domain version of MVS, to break IBM's monopoly.

8. International project to ensure that computers have a common language, with C being the obvious choice.

9. An emphasis on disbanding militaries, by finding out what people fear (or do) that makes them want to have such militaries in the first place, and then addressing those fears/desires so that the money can be better spent on improving living standards.

10. American Christian NGO that is working towards eliminating the anti-atheist prejudice in America.

My time these days is mostly spent on tasks 7 and 8. Even though the political tasks are undoubtedly more important, emperical data demonstrates that it is not a productive use of resources, even though the payoff is huge (e.g. a free Iran - no more state-rape). So until some breakthrough happens (such as Ali Fadhil becoming the next US President), the only responsible course of action is to stop squandering scarce resources on that futile task, and to instead put them into something that actually provides movement towards the stated end goal.

Here are some more practical examples.

Here we saw America biting off more than it could chew. It attempted to act high and mighty in defence of some of its enemies (Uzbek Islamists), who give the US precisely zero credit for such otherwise noble intentions, when it should have been keeping its mouth shut and not alienating someone who was providing them assistance. Quite frankly, it's not dissimiliar to the anti-Americanism from Europe when the Americans are providing assistance. Don't expect too much from allies. Be grateful for what they can provide, instead of complaining about what is a bridge too far.

Here we have some figures on relative troop costs. $250,000 for a US soldier in Afghanistan versus $12,000 for an Afghan. ie the American is 20 times more expensive. There are currently about 120,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan vs about 140,000 Afghans. It would make more sense to expand the Afghan security forces to Iraq levels (ie 600,000-strong), and reduce the foreign presence by a corresponding 25,000 or similar to keep the costs the same. There is no particular need to have a 40 year long civil war over by next Tuesday. Preferably reduce the forces even more and deploy them elsewhere (like Iran!). Let the Afghans win this war in their own time in their own way. So long as they get closer to the 600,000 every year, eventually the level of violence will reach whatever the desired level (in comparison with similar countries at peace) is. Obama is quite right in questioning the need to send more US troops to do what is an Afghan job.